The Bears Are “Better On Paper.” Whatever.

Posted by Holly Phelps on May 20, 2010   Jump To Comments

A lot has been made about the leaps and bounds that the Chicago Bears have taken to improve during the 2010 offseason.  They’ve hired new coordinators on each side of the ball and adopted the offensive scheme of the “Greatest Show On Turf” (even if Soldier Field is grass…torn-up, muddy, miserable-to-play-on grass).  They signed Julius Peppers to hassle opposing quarterbacks and ex-Viking Chester Taylor to help out Matt Forte and the running game.  They even got a new tight end in Brandon Manumaleuna, who can block while Greg Olson runs routes for Jay Cutler.  On paper, the Bears have filled most of their holes.  Their fans are expecting the team to be good right from the start.

But are they going to be any better?

Mike Martz’s new pass-happy offensive scheme is all about timing, precision, and rhythm.  It requires a serious amount of chemistry between a quarterback and his receivers, since the QB is throwing to a spot down the field, rather than to a receiver.  Cutler can rave all he wants about Martz and how peachy everything is going to be, and it’s probably true that Cutler will improve under Martz’s tutelage.

My beef is with the receivers. They were at fault for more than a few of Cutler’s interceptions last year – running the wrong route, falling down, flat-out misreading the coverage.  All you have to do is go back and watch the highlights of the second Packers-Bears game last year.  Yes, Cutler was wild on several throws, but his receivers weren’t doing him any favors.  In a brand new offensive scheme, where the receivers are relied upon to take a greater responsibility in the passing game…I have doubts that Devin Hester, Johnny Knox, and Devin Aromashodu will all pass muster.  I’m confident that they’ll be better players in 2010 than in 2009…a full offseason working with the same quarterback can make a huge difference.  But success in Martz’s complicated scheme takes more than just a summer of practice, and it might take a few years in this consistent scheme for everything to fall in place.

Still, there’s no doubt that the talent of the Chicago Bears, on paper, has been seriously upgraded.  Cutler has new targets, and an offensive coordinator who specializes in improving quarterback play.  Peppers can play on either side, and if the linebackers get healthy, that defense looks pretty scary up front.

Why do I care about the Chicago Bears in May?

Sports Illustrated’s Peter King ruffled some feathers this week by putting the Packers at the top of his offseason rankings.  Apparently, people got offended that the Vikings, Bears, Chargers, Titans, Patriots, etc., etc., are all ranked too low.  But back to King’s write-up on the Pack.  Notice what he said about this team:

It’s not just the maturation of Aaron Rodgers. It’s the carryover from a fluky end to 2009 (the weird playoff loss at Arizona) and the fact that only one team in football — New Orleans — had a better point differential than the Pack’s plus-164 last year. I like Jermichael Finley to become a great player in his second starting season.

What King is talking about if more than just what the team looks like on paper. He’s talking about a team that is building on the successes of last year with nearly all of the pieces already in place.  There’s no guesswork about how Rodgers and his receivers will fit together. There’s no question that the defense will be more comfortable in the second year of the 3-4 scheme than it was in its first.  This team has shown that it’s good on more than just paper.

Now, granted, the 2010 Packers haven’t proven a damn thing. But if you’re looking at how teams will mature and improve, it’s a lot easier to say that a team that already has the big pieces in place and needs to work on smoothing the details will be better than a team where half the players are new to the team and none of them really know the steps to this dance.

So… is “better on paper” really better?  Maybe.  But in this case, it doesn’t really matter, does it?  The Bears Still Suck.

What do you think about Peter King’s ranking the Packers at #1? Think Lovie keeps his job in 2011? You can email me at holly@brentfavre.com or find me on Twitter at @htphelps.